throbber
Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 1 of 34 PageID #: 905
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`THE STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
` v.
`
`JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., in his official
`capacity as President of the United States,
`et al.,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:21-cv-00287-AGF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
` BRIAN M. BOYNTON
` Acting Assistant Attorney General
`
` SAYLER A. FLEMING
` United States Attorney
`
` ERIC WOMACK
` Assistant Branch Director
` Federal Programs Branch
`
` STEPHEN M. PEZZI, #84311 (VA)
` CODY T. KNAPP, #5715438 (NY)
` Trial Attorneys
` United States Department of Justice
` Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
` Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 2 of 34 PageID #: 906
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION. ................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. ................................................................................................ 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent
`injury-in-fact.......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Any injury would be traceable to future, hypothetical agency actions, not to
`the Executive Order or the Interim Estimates. ......................................................... 5
`
`Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are not redressable by a victory in this lawsuit. ........ 7
`
`Plaintiffs’ remaining, miscellaneous bases for standing are meritless. ................ 8
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe. .......................................................................................................13
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK A CAUSE OF ACTION........................................................... 17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs do not challenge any final agency action. ...............................................................17
`
`The Working Group is not an agency subject to the APA. ................................................19
`
`Plaintiffs cannot invoke an equitable, non-statutory ultra vires cause of action. ...........20
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS ARE MERITLESS. ............................................................ 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The equitable, non-statutory ultra vires claims in Counts I and II lack merit. ................22
`
`Plaintiffs have conceded their notice-and-comment claim. ................................................25
`
`Plaintiffs have not stated any claim against Defendants other than the President or
`the Working Group. ........................................................................................................................25
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 3 of 34 PageID #: 907
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Allen v. Wright,
`468 U.S. 737 (1984) ............................................................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Am. Sch. of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty,
`187 U.S. 94 (1902)..............................................................................................................................................20, 21
`
`Arias v. DynCorp,
`752 F.3d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 2014).............................................................................................................................11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ..................................................................................................................................................20
`
`Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys. v. MCorp Fin., Inc.,
`502 U.S. 32 (1991).....................................................................................................................................................21
`
`Neb. State Legis. Bd., United Transp. Union v. Slater,
`245 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................................22, 23, 24, 25
`
`Bennett v. Spear,
`520 U.S. 154 (1997) ..................................................................................................................................................18
`
`Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep’t v. Allbaugh,
`295 F.3d 28 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................................................24
`
`Braitberg v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc.,
`836 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................................................10
`
`California v. Texas,
`141 S. Ct. 2104 (2021).................................................................................................................................... 6, 7, 10
`
`California v. Trump,
`No. 19-cv-960-RDM, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2020 WL 1643858 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2020) ....................... 5, 6
`
`City of Kennett v. EPA,
`887 F.3d 424 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Barr,
`929 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2019)................................................................................................................................13
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA,
`568 U.S. 398 (2013) ........................................................................................................................................ 2, 4, 12
`
`Collins v. Yellen, No. 19-422,
`141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021)................................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 4 of 34 PageID #: 908
`
`Common Cause v. Trump,
`506 F. Supp. 3d 39 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................................................24
`
`Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko,
`534 U.S. 61 (2001).....................................................................................................................................................21
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Trump,
`453 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2020) .......................................................................................................................21
`
`Dalton v. Specter,
`511 U.S. 462 (1994) ..................................................................................................................................................22
`
`Demien Const. Co. v. O’Fallon Fire Prot. Dist.,
`812 F.3d 654 (8th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................................................25
`
`Democracy Forward Found. v. White House Off. of Am. Innovation,
`356 F. Supp. 3d 61 (D.D.C. 2019) .......................................................................................................................20
`
`Dep’t of Commerce v. New York,
`139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019)................................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Duffner v. City of St. Peters,
`930 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................................................13
`
`Eagle Tr. Fund v. USPS,
`811 F. App’x 669 (D.C. Cir. 2020).......................................................................................................................22
`
`El Paso Cty. v. Trump,
`982 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................................................11
`
`FEC v. Akins,
`524 U.S. 11 (1998)....................................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Fed. Forest Res. Coal. v. Vilsack,
`100 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015) ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd.,
`561 U.S. 477 (2010) ..................................................................................................................................................24
`
`Gallagher v. City of Clayton,
`699 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2012)................................................................................................................................11
`
`Golden v. Zwickler,
`394 U.S. 103 (1969) .................................................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Gov’t of Manitoba v. Bernhardt,
`923 F.3d 173 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 5 of 34 PageID #: 909
`
`Hias, Inc. v. Trump,
`985 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................................................24
`
`Huskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,
`486 F. Supp. 3d 1339 (E.D. Mo. 2020) .......................................................................................................12, 25
`
`Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block,
`771 F.2d 347 (8th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................................... 9, 10, 11
`
`Johnson v. Missouri,
`142 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1998).................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Key Med. Supply, Inc. v. Burwell,
`764 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................................21, 23, 24
`
`Lance v. Coffman,
`549 U.S. 437 (2007) ..................................................................................................................................................12
`
`Leedom v. Kyne,
`358 U.S. 184 (1958) ..................................................................................................................................................21
`
`Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ....................................................................................................................................2, 7, 8, 10
`
`Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n,
`497 U.S. 871 (1990) ............................................................................................................................................. 1, 13
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) ............................................................................................................................................. 9, 10
`
`Massachusetts v. Mellon,
`262 U.S. 447 (1923) .................................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Meyer v. Bush,
`981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993)......................................................................................................................19, 20
`
`Michigan v. EPA,
`581 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................................................10
`
`Missouri v. Yellen,
`No. 4:21-cv-376-HEA, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2021 WL 1889867 (E.D. Mo. May 11, 2021) .................16
`
`Mo. Roundtable for Life v. Carnahan,
`676 F.3d 665 (8th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................................................17
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983)..............................................................................................................................................14, 15
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 6 of 34 PageID #: 910
`
`Nat’l Park Hosp. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Interior,
`538 U.S. 803 (2003) ..................................................................................................................................................13
`
`Newdow v. Roberts,
`603 F.3d 1002 (D.C. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Nucor Steel-Ark. v. EPA,
`2016 WL 4055695 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 13, 2016) ..................................................................................................22
`
`Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors,
`589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................................................22, 23
`
`Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club,
`523 U.S. 726 (1998) ..................................................................................................................................................15
`
`Pennsylvania v. Kleppe,
`533 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ...............................................................................................................................11
`
`Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Trump,
`297 F. Supp. 3d 6 (D.D.C. 2018)..................................................................................................................... 6, 23
`
`Regents of the University of California,
`140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020).......................................................................................................................................13, 14
`
`Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Rsrv. v. U.S. Corps of Eng’rs,
`888 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................................................18
`
`Soundboard Ass’n v. FTC,
`888 F.3d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 2018).............................................................................................................................18
`
`Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
`136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).................................................................................................................................... 5, 6, 10
`
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998)....................................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Summers v. Earth Island Inst.,
`555 U.S. 488, 490 (2009) ...................................................................................................................................passim
`
`Thermal Sci., Inc. v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,
`29 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (E.D. Mo. 1998).................................................................................................................22
`
`Thermal Sci., Inc. v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n,
`184 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1999) ...........................................................................................................................21, 22
`
`Town of Chester v. Laroe Ests., Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017)..............................................................................................................................................17
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 7 of 34 PageID #: 911
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021)................................................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Trudeau v. FTC,
`456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................................................23
`
`Trump v. New York,
`141 S. Ct. 530 (2020) ............................................................................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`Watt v. Energy Action Educ. Found.,
`454 U.S. 151 (1981) ..................................................................................................................................................11
`
`West v. Bergland,
`611 F.2d 710 (8th Cir. 1979) ..................................................................................................................................24
`
`Wild Va. v. CEQ,
`--- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2021 WL 2521561 (W.D. Va. June 21, 2021) ......................................................15, 17
`
`Wyoming v. Oklahoma,
`502 U.S. 437 (1992) ..................................................................................................................................................11
`
`Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,
`343 U.S. 579 (1952) ..................................................................................................................................................24
`
`Executive Orders
`
`Exec. Order No. 12291 (Feb. 17, 1981)............................................................................................................. 3, 19
`
`Exec. Order No. 13771 (Jan. 30, 2017) ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Exec. Order No. 13783 (Mar. 28, 2017) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Exec. Order No. 13990 (Jan. 20, 2021) .............................................................................................................passim
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) .......................................................................................................................................................19
`
`5 U.S.C. § 704 ..................................................................................................................................................................18
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ......................................................................................................................................................14
`
`41 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1)...................................................................................................................................................12
`
`42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. ..................................................................................................................................................16
`
`Regulatory Documents
`
`40 C.F.R. § 1502.22 (2020) ..........................................................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 8 of 34 PageID #: 912
`
`EPA, Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons, 86 Fed. Reg. 27150 (May 19, 2021) ...................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Dep’t of the Interior, Sec’y of the Interior Order No. 3399 (April 16, 2021),
`available at https://perma.cc/6ADG-ZWAN ..................................................................................................16
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 9 of 34 PageID #: 913
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ opposition brief confirms that at least “[a]t present, this case is riddled with
`
`
`
`contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review.” Trump v. New York, 141 S. Ct. 530, 535
`
`(2020) (per curiam). “The President, to be sure, has made clear his desire” that agencies use the
`
`Interim Estimates in rulemaking, id.—though only when doing so is already authorized by law. But
`
`the problem for Plaintiffs is that, until some agency actually takes some specific action, relying on the
`
`Interim Estimates, which affects regulated parties outside the Executive Branch, “[a]ny prediction
`
`how the Executive Branch might eventually implement this general statement of policy is no more
`
`than conjecture at this time.” Id. And in the absence of a concrete application of the Executive Order,
`
`in a particular, final agency action that harms Plaintiffs, the Court cannot reach the merits.
`
`“The case-by-case approach that this requires is understandably frustrating to” Plaintiffs, Lujan
`
`v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 894 (1990), who would prefer to invalidate Section 5 of the
`
`Executive Order and the Interim Estimates in their entirety and all at once. But that case-by-case
`
`approach “is the traditional, and remains the normal, mode of operation of the courts.” Id. Article
`
`III courts “intervene in the administration of the laws only when, and to the extent that, a specific
`
`final agency action has an actual or immediately threatened effect.” Id. (quotation omitted). Here,
`
`because that time has not yet come, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
`
`If the Court were to reach the merits, Plaintiffs’ claims—which have narrowed and morphed
`
`as briefing has proceeded—would fare no better. Despite opening this case with allegations that the
`
`Executive Order “comes as a wolf,” Am. Compl. ¶ 1, and “tears at the fabric of liberty,” id. ¶ 5,
`
`Plaintiffs’ latest brief hardly discusses the separation of powers at all. Plaintiffs all but concede their
`
`notice-and-comment claim. And they reduce their remaining claims to a conclusory assertion that the
`
`Executive Order and the Interim Estimates are ultra vires—citing no applicable statutory prohibition
`
`and failing to account for the President’s (and OIRA’s) explicit instructions to agencies to stay within
`
`any applicable statutory guardrails.
`
`Whether for lack of standing or ripeness, the absence of a cause of action, or because they
`
`lack merit, all of Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 10 of 34 PageID #: 914
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION.
`The two most obvious problems with Plaintiffs’ claims—standing and ripeness—“each
`
`originat[e] in the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Trump v. New York, 141 S. Ct. at
`
`535. Both require dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.
`
`A.
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing.
`Plaintiffs have not carried their burden to establish “the irreducible constitutional minimum
`
`of standing.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). Although Plaintiffs challenge Section 5
`
`of Executive Order 13990 and the Interim Estimates, their alleged injuries are (1) speculative;
`
`(2) caused by future hypothetical agency regulations (rather than the Executive Order or the Interim
`
`Estimates); and (3) not likely to be redressed by the court order they seek.
`1.
`Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete, particularized, and actual or
`imminent injury-in-fact.
`To support standing, “an injury must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.”
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013) (quotation omitted). Plaintiffs’ theory of injury
`
`assumes that they will be harmed by future agency regulations issued in reliance on the Executive
`
`Order and the Interim Estimates. It is thus undisputed that “a number of things must occur before
`
`[they] will suffer an actual or even an imminent injury.” Johnson v. Missouri, 142 F.3d 1087, 1090 (8th
`
`Cir. 1998). To mitigate that problem, Plaintiffs invoke “commonsense,” Pls.’ Opp’n 14, and suggest
`
`Defendants have “exhibit[ed] a naiveté,” id. at 15, in arguing that Plaintiffs’ anticipated injuries are not
`
`“certainly impending,” Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409. Article III demands more than such rhetoric.
`
`For one, the Supreme Court has been “reluctant to endorse standing theories that require
`
`guesswork as to how independent decisionmakers will exercise their judgment.” Id. at 413. That is
`
`what Plaintiffs ask of this Court. Which agency might harm Plaintiffs? When? By what means?
`
`Under what authority? Relying in what way (if at all) on the Interim Estimates? Plaintiffs never say,
`
`because they do not (and cannot) know. Instead, Plaintiffs seem to assume that it is enough to predict
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 11 of 34 PageID #: 915
`
`that, at some point, some agency will inevitably issue some rule that relies in some way on the Interim
`
`Estimates. See Pls.’ Opp’n 20 (asserting “the U.S. Government averages roughly 4,000 rules a year”).
`
`That is not enough. “[A]llegations of future injury” must “be particular and concrete.” Steel
`
`Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 109 (1998). If the bar were as low as Plaintiffs suggest,
`
`then the plaintiffs in Summers v. Earth Island Institute would have had standing.1 After all, there was
`
`presumably little doubt in Summers that, at some point in the future, at least once, the Forest Service
`
`would make use of the challenged “regulations that exempt[ed] small . . . timber-salvage projects from
`
`the notice, comment, and appeal process used by the [agency] for more significant” actions. 555 U.S.
`
`488, 490 (2009). Nonetheless, the Court granted certiorari to “determine whether respondents ha[d]
`
`standing to challenge the regulations in the absence of a live dispute over a concrete application of
`
`those regulations.” Id. Its answer was no: “the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had failed ‘to
`
`allege that any particular timber sale or other project claimed to be unlawfully subject to the regulations
`
`will impede a specific and concrete’ interest of the plaintiffs in the national forests.” Fed. Forest Res.
`
`Coal. v. Vilsack, 100 F. Supp. 3d 21, 43 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Summers, 555 U.S. at 495) (emphasis
`
`altered). The Court rejected as insufficient for standing an affidavit about one individual’s “plans to
`
`visit several unnamed national forests in the future,” among other reasons “because it [did] not identify
`
`any particular site” or “particular timber sale.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 495 (emphases added). Plaintiffs
`
`have (at least) the same problem—“in the absence of a live dispute over a concrete application” of
`
`the Interim Estimates in a particular agency action that has caused them (or will cause them) actual or
`
`imminent harm, id. at 490, Plaintiffs cannot carry their burden to demonstrate an Article III injury.2
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs’ response to the lengthy discussion of Summers (see Defs.’ Br. 16-17) addresses only
`the separate point that bare procedural harms do not provide standing. See Pls.’ Opp’n 9.
`2 Plaintiffs cite one proposed rule in which EPA “referenc[ed]” the Interim Estimates. Pls.’
`Opp’n 13 (citing 86 Fed. Reg. 27150). But EPA did not actually rely on the Interim Estimates to
`support that proposed rule, nor do Plaintiffs allege that the proposed rule has caused them any harm
`(or even that it will cause them harm, if finalized in the same form), so EPA’s proposal has no bearing
`here. In any event, as Plaintiffs acknowledge, “Congress mandated that EPA reduce hydrofluorocarbon
`emissions by 85% in 15 years,” and this proposed rule is just a first step in implementing that
`congressional command. Pls.’ Opp’n 13 (emphasis added). The proposed rule offers no suggestion
`that E.O. 13990 in any way motivated or justified the agency’s (proposed) action. See 86 Fed. Reg. at
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 12 of 34 PageID #: 916
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs argue that “Clapper does not apply here because instead of merely authorizing the
`
`injury, . . . the Executive Order mandates the Interim Values.” Pls.’ Opp’n 14. Plaintiffs
`
`misunderstand the analogy to Clapper, in which plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge surveillance laws
`
`that “at most authorize[d]—but [did] not mandate or direct—the surveillance that respondents fear[ed],”
`
`making their allegations “necessarily conjectural.” 568 U.S. at 412. Even if the Executive Order
`
`“mandates” the Interim Estimates, that is not the source of Plaintiffs’ alleged injury. Instead, Plaintiffs
`
`fear future agency regulations. But neither the Executive Order nor the Interim Estimates “mandate
`
`or direct” issuance of any particular regulation. So Clapper forecloses Plaintiffs’ theory of injury.3
`
`Plaintiffs try to tighten the relevant causal chain by suggesting that “an agency promulgates a
`
`rule using the Interim Values because the President ordered it.” Pls.’ Opp’n 14. That description is
`
`both inaccurate and incomplete: although the President, by Executive Order, mandated publication
`
`of the Interim Estimates, he never “ordered” any agency to promulgate any “rule using the Interim
`
`Values”—let alone any particular rule that has caused (or imminently will cause) Plaintiffs harm. Nor
`
`do Plaintiffs account for the possibility that an agency will “use” the Interim Estimates, for example,
`
`solely to comply with the internal Executive Branch requirements of E.O. 12866 (i.e., without relying
`
`upon a cost-benefit analysis to justify the rule). See Defs.’ Br. 19-21.
`
`
`
`In sum, Plaintiffs are surely correct “that federal agencies will follow an executive order from
`
`the President of the United States.” Pls.’ Opp’n 3. But that is not enough to show a “certainly
`impending” future injury, Clapper, 568 U.S. at 409, from a “concrete application” of the Executive
`
`
`27201. That is no surprise—often, “the Interim Estimates will have made no substantive difference
`to the outcome” of a rulemaking, and thus will have caused no injury. Defs.’ Br. 19.
`3 In Clapper, the Supreme Court also noted that plaintiffs could “only speculate as to whether
`the Government will seek to use § 1881a-authorized surveillance (rather than other methods),” given
`that “[t]he Government has numerous other methods of conducting surveillance, none of which [was]
`challenged [t]here.” 568 U.S. at 412-13. Much the same could be said here: Plaintiffs do not dispute
`Defendants’ explanation of why it will be rare that the Interim Estimates will be outcome
`determinative in any rulemaking, see Defs.’ Br. 19-21, given “the way that cost-benefit analysis is
`used—or, more often, not used—to justify agency rules” within the Executive Branch, id. at 21.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 4:21-cv-00287-AGF Doc. #: 37 Filed: 07/21/21 Page: 13 of 34 PageID #: 917
`
`Order and the Interim Estimates, Summers, 555 U.S. at 494, in a “particular” agency action, id. at 495.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot show injury in fact.
`2.
`Any injury would be traceable to future, hypothetical agency actions,
`not to the Executive Order or the Interim Estimates.
`Even if Plaintiffs could show a certainly impending future injury, it would not be “fairly
`
`traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547
`
`(2016). Instead, all of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries will be caused, if at all, by future, hypothetical agency
`
`actions—not the Executive Order or the Interim Estimates. See Defs.’ Br. 21-23.
`
`Plaintiffs’ latest brief (like the amended complaint, see id. at 23) is full of references to harms
`
`that Plaintiffs assume they will suffer from future agency regulations—rather than harms that have actually
`
`been caused (or will imminently be caused) by the Executive Order. For example, Plaintiffs assert
`
`that “they will imminently suffer future injury to their sovereignty and their pocketbooks from future
`
`agency actions using the Interim Values.” Pls.’ Opp’n 5-6 (emphasis added). Even excusing the
`
`speculation (and the unjustified use of the word “imminently”), that is a claim about harm “from
`
`future agency actions,” id.—not the Executive Order. Likewise, even accepting uncritically “that future
`
`regulations will increase the costs on

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket